This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws
S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-International transaction-Arm’s Length Price-Concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars-Penalty levied on enhancement of Transfer Pricing adjustments-Tribunal directing inclusion or exclusion of certain comparables-If Directions Of Tribunal Given Effect By Assessing Officer Basis Transfer Pricing Adjustments Would Not Survive-No Question Of Penalty. [S. 92C, 92CA (3)]
Trip Advisor Travel India Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. CIT (2023)101 ITR 28 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)
S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Statement on oath-Undisclosed Income-Conditions-Admission in statement recorded during search not the sole criteria-A.O. not recording satisfaction-No legal basis for sustaining charge of undisclosed income-No basis for levy of penalty. [S. 132, 132(4)]
Dy. CIT v. Sel Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2023)101 ITR 674 (Chd) (Trib)
S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Assessee declared income including income surrendered during search-A.O. initiating penalty-Show cause notice unclear with respect to which clause-Cash available with assessee as consequence of savings and gift-Cannot be treated as undisclosed income-Penalty quashed.[S. 132, 132(4), 274]
Priyanka Agarwal (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2023) 101 ITR 391 (Jaipur) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additions during reassessment-Reasons recorded for reopening assessment and additions made on different grounds. A.O. failed to prove that assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income-Additions deleted-Penalty deleted.[S. 133(6), 147, 148]
Babita Devi Kajoria v. ITO (2023) 101 ITR 17 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Denial of special deduction claimed against income from long term capital gain-No business income shown-High court decision in favour-Deduction admissible-Not a case of furnishing inaccurate particular-Penalty not leviable. [S. 80G, 80HHC, 112(2)]
Atul Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023) 101 ITR 11 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Slump sale-Exemption-Exemption denied in revision-Computation of book profits objected-Transaction not ‘Transfer’-AO conforming to legal standards to compute books of accounts-Transactions between subsidiaries not amenable to book profits computation-Revision not justified.[S. 45,47(iv), 115JB]
TMF Holdings Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 423 (Mum) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Deposit of cash by husband of assessee-sale of plot belonging to father and amount deposited in assessee’s account-AO raising queries and after all verification accepting return of the assessee-Revision is bad in law. [S. 143(3)]
Surinder Kaur (Ms.) v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 531 (Chd) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny assessment-Large share application money received against unallotted shares-AO examining and making necessary verifications-Arrived at plausible view-Revision not warranted.[S. 143(3)]
Sun Developers and Builders P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 688 (Raipur) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Deposit of cash during demonetisation-Non-co-operation and noncompliance of assessee to furnish details to A.O.-Estimation of net profit at 5% by AO without any basis and without consulting any records-Revision is valid. [S. 44AD, 144]
Subhadip Gandhi v. ITO (2023) 101 ITR 133 (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Best judgement assessment-Failure to serve notice under 143(2)-Invalid assessment cannot be subject matter of revision.[S. 143(2), 144].
A.K. Santhosh v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 581 (Cochin) (Trib)